[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Stephen Deerhake sdeerhake at nic.as
Mon Oct 12 08:01:26 UTC 2015


 

 

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz] 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 5:53 AM
To: sdeerhake at nic.as
Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

 

> Hi Stephen, all:

> 

> I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere.

 

Thank you for your acknowledgement that this is a legitmate issue that needs to be ironed out to consensus; I'm assuming then that the co-chairs will schedule time in Dublin for a discussion to hash out this matter?

 

> But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them.

 

Personally, if PDP processes (regardless of the SO that they originate from) do not have some sort of "quarantine" around them, then in my opinion, the CCWG work will not muster the SO approval required for it to go forward.

 

> For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said:

> 

> "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available."

 

So the CCWG will have to define "has no impact on ICANN generally", and figure out the "$x" budgetary impact amount?  Any thoughts on how we do this?  Especially with our collapsed timeframe?  Is there time on the agenda in Dublin to do this?

 

> I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations.

> 

> A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear.

 

I think that applying the criteria of "limited financial impact" as the sole determiner of whether or not a PDP is excluded from cross SO/AC review is not sufficient; this would, for example, leave a ccNSO PDP surrounding the codification of the Framework of Interpration subject to approval/veto by other SO/AC's.  Is that really acceptable to you?

 

> But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed.

 

I submit that this would be the Board's remit to decide that.

                      

> In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources.

 

I'm not claiming a stake on other SO/AC resources; I'm looking at protecting ccTLD resources and interests in this proposed changed landscape.  That's all.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Stephen Deerhake

 

> 

> What say you?

> 

> Cheers

> Jordan 


On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as> > wrote:

Jordan,

 

I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for.

 

I think the ccNSO would not like this either.

 

So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA?

 

Just asking…

 

Best Regards,

 

/Stephen

 

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');> ] 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM
To: sdeerhake at nic.as <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake at nic.as');> 
Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler at auda.org.au');> >; accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors at omadhina.net');> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

 

Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!

 

We must be clear though:  what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?

 

Because these are not casual powers.

 

Such a situation would surely only emerge if:

 

A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and

 

B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case.

 

 

In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'?

 

And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.

 

 

The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected?

 

Jordan 

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake at nic.as');> > wrote:

Greetings Paul,

 

With respect to my earlier post, you write:

 

[---START---]

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): 

 

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario. 

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

[---END--]

 

Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.

 

Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this?  I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.

 

Regards,

Stephen Deerhake

AS Domain Registry

GDNS LLC

+1 212 334 3660

+1 212 656 1983

sdeerhake at nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as> 

sdeerhake at gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake at gdns.net> 

 

 

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM
To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> >
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net <mailto:directors at omadhina.net> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

 

Thanks Jordan, 

 

My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.

After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.

 

I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted.

As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.

 

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): 

 

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario. 

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

 

The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.

The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others.

The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?

 

This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.

 

Paul

 

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz] 
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM
To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> >
Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na <mailto:el at lisse.na> >; Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net <mailto:directors at omadhina.net> >; accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

 

Hi all,

 

A comment or two re Paul's note below;

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> > wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the
independence and autonomy of ccTLDs.
However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this
independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder
community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in.
As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a
solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the
ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get
down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms.
Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

 

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.

 

Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?

 

This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.

 

What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.

 

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe
that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective
attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability
processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of
ccTLD managers.
However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because
these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence
our environment in the future.

 

Agree.

 

Jordan 

 


Perhaps I could turn your question back to you.
I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual
capacity to the CCWG.
Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it
about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el at lisse.na');> ]
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM
To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler at auda.org.au');> >
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');> ; Lisse Eberhard
<directors at omadhina.NET <mailto:directors at omadhina.NET> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Paul,

what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler at auda.org.au');> > wrote:
>
> Thank you for this Mathieu,
>
> Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it
> still conveys a very strong message.
> Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process
> that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.
>
> It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my
> observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including
> yourself,  Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the
> ongoing work.
> I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in
> their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.
>
> So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position
> because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC
> communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor
> taken a definitive position.
> Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing
> the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs?
> Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far
> (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what
> may happen over the coming months?
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Limited
> T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389
> E: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler at auda.org.au');>  <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler at auda.org.au');> >  | W:
> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au>  <http://www.auda.org.au/>
> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda>  | Blog:
> www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>  <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>
>
>
> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
>
> Important Notice
>
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> addressee only.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');> 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');> ] On Behalf Of
> Mathieu Weill
> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');> 
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am
> attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint
> session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made
> of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship
> transition.
>
> The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now
> online :
> https://t.co/EuolALNkgV
>
> You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free
> to
> re-use) :
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability
> +Upd
> ate
>
>
> As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we
> prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play,
> and what remains to be done.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr');> 
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity



-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');> 

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity



-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151012/0d1b7544/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list